Thursday, October 17, 2013

Kauai City Council slaps down Monsanto with new restrictions on GMOs,...

(NaturalNews) A milestone has just been achieved on the island in Kaua'i, where the city council passed measure 2491 which places unprecedented new restrictions on toxic agricultural chemicals frequently used in conjunction with GMOs.Few people realize that Kaua'i is ground zero for chemical experimentation in agriculture. The island hosts 15,000 acres of crop lands which are experimentally exploited by biotech companies and chemical manufacturers. As a result, Hawaiians who live on Kaua'i are exposed to a toxic cocktail of synthetic chemicals on a routine basis.

The bill passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with councilman Mel Rapozo siding with the biotech industry and voting no. Hawaii Governor Abercrombie appears to be set against the bill and tried to block its passage. The biotech industry, as usual, has been busily engaged in false, defamatory, deceptive and even criminal actions in trying to block this city council measure. The industry, for example, routinely bribes scientists to publicly oppose bills restricting GMOs while falsely claiming they have no financial ties to the industry.

What 2491 establishes and requires

2) Disclosure of GMO crops (until now, they have largely remained a secret).

3) Public notification before chemical spraying so that concerned citizens can leave the area and limit their exposure.

4) A county-level environmental assessment of the potentially hazardous effects of thetoxic chemicals being sprayed on agricultural crops.

5) Full disclosure of the exact pesticides and herbicides being sprayed, as well as location details of where spraying is taking place.

Help support Hawaii's continued victory against toxic agriculture

An email sent to me by key proponents of 2491 says:

Our massive campaigns across Hawai'i will continue over the next few months, we must pass Bill #113 on Hawai'i Island. On Oahu, after 18 months of pressure, it is time for Kamehameha Schools to EVICT MONSANTO from Hale'iwa. The largest lease to any GMO company on Oahu is the Kamehameha Schools lease of 1,033 acres above the most famous surf breaks in the world. No environmental assessment of chemicalcontamination has ever occurred in Hale'iwa.

Any day, the chemical companies will file a lawsuit to block the implementation of 2491. The chemical companies are fighting for [their desire] to spray toxic chemicals, (many of them are banned throughout the world) less then 500 feet from schools, such as Waimea Canyon Middle School.

Ballots including Washington’s I-522, the ballot measure to require
labeling of genetically engineered foods in the state, were mailed to
voters in Washington State this week, which doesn't leave us much time to talk to voters about the importance of passing I-522 and labeling GMOs.

Roundup-ready, aim, spray: How GM crops lead to herbicide addiction

To understand the environmental effects of GMOs, I started by looking at plants genetically modified to be insect-resistant
— and concluded that they have, on balance, helped reduce overall
insecticide use in U.S. farming. The picture isn’t so rosy with the
other main trait that GM agribusiness promotes, herbicide tolerance.While it’s clear that genetic engineering has reduced the amount of
insecticides that farmers spray, it’s just as clear that it has
encouraged a much larger increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate.
And while insect resistance is safeguarded by some (insufficient)
regulations, there are no regulations to rein in the way that
herbicide-tolerant plants encourage overuse of herbicides.If insect-resistant plants have helped run the pesticide treadmill in
reverse, as entomologist Bruce Tabashnik told me, herbicide tolerant
plants are running it forward at full speed, increasing our reliance on
harmful chemicals.Those are broad strokes, and there are a couple caveats here. For one
thing, the data on agricultural pesticide use is patchy and prone to
interpretation. And — although government numbers show an increase in total herbicide use
— farmers have been using much milder chemicals, chiefly glyphosate,
the active ingredient in Roundup. Instead of just looking at the total
pounds of the herbicides used, it seems like it would make more sense to
do a little math: pounds x nastiness.I asked Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State
University, about this, and he endorsed my simple equation. But
Benbrook, who since 2004 has been putting out reports on pesticide use
associated with genetically engineered plants, said there’s also a good
reason to pay attention to the raw poundage of pesticides, which is
exactly what he does.“The reason I started doing this was that the biotech industry kept
claiming that the GE crops on the market at the time were reducing
pesticide use. And it was just factually incorrect if you looked at the
increase in glyphosate use,” he said. “From the beginning I’ve always
said that glyphosate is a great herbicide — it’s one of the safest on
the market. But there are real consequences in using so much of it.”London PermacultureGlyphosate.The most obvious consequence has been the spread of
glyphosate-resistant weeds. But, I asked Benbrook, can we really tie
glyphosate-resistant weeds to GE crops? After all, farmers started using
Roundup long before Monsanto invented Roundup Ready seeds.The GM crops increased the evolutionary selection pressure on weeds,
Benbrook said, because people started using gylphosate more regularly
and during the cropping season, instead of just before or after harvest.
Any weed that could survive gained an enormous competitive advantage
and spread its seeds.Why did GM lead to greater herbicide use? Bill Freese, at the Center for Food Safety, says it’s simple economics.“If you are planting Roundup Ready seeds, there’s a strong incentive
to only use Roundup,” Freese said. “The farmers say, ‘look, I’m paying
extra for this trait — there’s a real financial incentive to make use of
this trait.’”And spraying glyphosate in conjunction with GM herbicide-tolerant crops was so easy and effective that agronomists started referring to it as “agricultural heroin.”
It worked so much better than anything else that farmers became
addicted. For farmers rotating between planting glyphosate-resistant soy
and glyphosate-resistant corn, it was hard not to use glyphosate year
in and year out as their primary form of weed control. When this
happens, the National Research Council concluded,
“strong selection pressure exists for the evolution of
glyphosate-resistant weeds because the management tactics vary so little
between the two crops.”This wasn’t just irresponsible behavior by farmers, however: Monsanto
encouraged these reckless practices, assuring farmers in advertisements
that it was absolutely fine to use glyphosate every year. And this, of
course, was a textbook method for breeding glyphosate-resistant weeds.Click to embiggen.Unlike insect-resistant crops, which opened the door to alternative
forms of pest management, herbicide-tolerant crops narrowed weed control
options to a single obvious solution.“They basically went to a 100 percent Roundup system,” said Carol Mallory-Smith, a professor of weed science at Oregon State.Now, if your instinct is to cheer the fall of glyphosate, don’t be
too hasty. The biotech response to that is to develop crops tolerant of
much more dangerous herbicides — and to make a tidy profit in the
process. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

[The major agro-chemical companies] are together spending
hundreds of millions of dollars to develop genetically modified
soybean, corn and cotton seeds that can survive a dousing by their
herbicides, many decades old.“It will be a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies,
says John Jachetta, a scientist at Dow Chemical’s Dow AgroSciences and
president of the Weed Science Society of America. “It is a new era.”

And there are already weeds that resist multiple herbicides. In the
southern U.S., the cost of herbicides for growing cotton have more than
quadrupled in recent years, and many farmers have simply given up.It’s not this dire everywhere: In many places weeds are still well
controlled. But many weed scientists are beginning to say that the focus
on herbicides matched with transgenic crops has gone too far. As Mallory-Smith and five other scientists put it, in a letter published in the journal Weed Science
[$ub. req.], “Are we as a discipline so committed to maintaining
profits for the agrochemical industry that we cannot offer up realistic
long-term solutions to this pressing problem?”Supporters of GMOs point out that the spread of resistance is not the
fault of a flaw in the technology. And in a narrow sense that’s true —
the technology could have been used differently. But herbicide-tolerance
is at the heart of a larger technological system that guides its use.
Without regulators and industry prudently restricting this sort of GM
technology, it can be self-limiting, even self-defeating. And in this
case, it’s clear that industry was anything but prudent.There’s one more twist to this story about herbicide tolerance, and
it has to do with conservation tillage — where farmers leave their
plants standing, or plow only lightly. I’ll look at that next.More in this series:

Chemical Corporations Tremble at Kauai's Unwavering Determination

Over forty people lined up at 10pm on Monday evening to get a seat
in Kauai's small council chambers the following day at 8:30am. They
stood, laid and danced in line, through dark tropical downpours, for
over 10 hours just to witness one of many ongoing council meetings. This
has become the state of our lives over the past months. Public hearings
lasting past 1am, historical mobilizations of thousands taking to the streets, nights where sleep has been replaced by research, writing and sign-making.Little Kauai's struggle against the largest chemical-seed corporations in the world is inspiring much attention. Nearly every corn seed
in the industrial food system touches Hawaii somewhere; the most
isolated islands in the world have become a main hub of research and
development for the multinational companies that dominate the agricultural input market.
Six corporations control 70 percent of the global pesticide (including
herbicide and insecticide) market and essentially the entire market for
genetically modified seeds. Four of them -- Pioneer DuPont, Dow,
Syngenta and BASF -- occupy 15,000 acres on Kauai. Kauai has a
population of 64,000 mostly working-class residents. A true David versus
Goliath story that is just beginning to fully unfold.Some recent media commentators have asked "why now?" about Hawaii's growing movement against the agrochemical-GMO industry, suggesting the influence of a relatively paltry
sum of non-local funding, a few friendly politicians, and Facebook. All
things that perhaps have been tools in the movement, but surely not an
explanation for its presence, popular resonance and firm determination.To understand the "why" of our local struggle, it firstly needs to be
situated in a larger global movement that is responding to a radically
unjust, anti-democratic and ecologically destructive food and agricultural system. On Kauai, the movement is partly about the local manifestations of that food system -- the poisoning of land and people for the development of new technologies that the world does not want, and does not need. It is a response to resident grievances over breathing in pesticide-laden dust on a daily basis for the past 15 years; parent and teacher anger after dozens of students were poisoned a second and third time; local physician concerns
that they are noticing higher rates of illnesses and rare birth
defects; the frustration of Native Hawaiian taro farmers watching rivers
go dry as chemical companies divert and dump water; beekeeper fears that they will be next to loose organic certification due to pesticide contamination, or experience hive die-off from the known bee-killers.Some of the same commentators have mistakenly labeled our struggle an
"anti-GMO" movement, reducing our activism to mere opposition to a
technology. More accurately, on Kauai we are responding to the specific
impacts of the agrochemical-GMO industry on our island -- clearly an
issue of environmental justice.
Within the global movement that we are a part of, there are people who
do not believe we should be influencing life at the fundamental level
that GMO technology does. There are also a lot of people in the movement
who are not strictly opposed to the science of genetic engineering
itself. In regards to GMOs, what is being opposed is the direction and control of that science, and the resulting social and ecological devastation of how it is being used.We are beginning to expose what happens at "Ground Zero"
of the chemical-GMO industry's R&D operations. Kauai may soon pass a
bill that would give us the right to know what pesticides are being
used in massive amounts right up next to schools, hospitals and residences. Kauai County Bill 2491
would also establish buffer-zones around these sensitive areas, mandate
a health and environmental impact study, and if passed in its full
form, put a temporary halt on expansion of the industry.As Kauai's pesticide "Right to Know" bill moves forward, the chemical companies are revealing just how afraid
they are of us gaining even the most basic information about their
operations. Arrows to derail, distract, depress and divide us are being
shot from every direction, and from some of the deepest pockets
on the planet. Above all, the chem-seed corporations are attempting to
exterminate our belief that we are capable of making change. They tell
us that justice is illegal, that we must choose between jobs and health,
that we will be inept at regulating them (wouldn't they like to
think!), that we can't possibly feed ourselves from our best
agricultural lands, and that without them the world will go hungry. They
try to push us to retreat back to our individual lives, convinced that
collective action for social change has become impossible, and that there simply is no alternative to the food system they are designing.Too often we concede our imaginations to the status quo; the dominant logics of the day train us to do so. We talk as if all the deals have already been made.
We say we tried in the 60's, but nothing ever changes. We decide that
the best we can do is buy organic or fair-trade, crossing our fingers
that our "dollar vote"
will transform the entire food system. We attempt to just "opt-out" of
the system, hoping that the billions of others will somehow find their
way "out" too (even though we know ours is rife with contradictions). We
sing "don't worry, just be happy," and pop a Prozac.But what is happening on Kauai is inspiring the eyes of the
world and terrifying the chemical companies because we have not, and
will not, surrender our belief in the possibility of big, meaningful
social change. When they tell us that "there is no alternative" to their malignant existence, we are calling their bluff.We are on the verge of forcing insidiously powerful
corporations to disclose what kinds of toxic experiments they are
conducting on our land and people. And this is just the very tip of what
is happening on Kauai, and what is increasingly happening around the
world. As we build new solidarities, connect the dots of destruction
in our food system, and situate these in the broader economic-political
context, we are having new conversations and thinking in ways that push
the boundaries of what is considered possible. We are beginning to talk
seriously about our fundamental human rights to clean air, water and
soil; about the colonial legacy of concentrated land ownership; about the privatization of the resources needed to grow food; about the injustices of an economic system where competitive profit accumulation is the only defining logic; and about the possibility of new ways, often based in old knowledge and wisdom.Though the chemical companies may be devastating our lands and
waters, they have not devastated our imaginations. Whether or not we
pass a bill, we are growing the momentum, intelligence and creativity of
a movement that will continue to take bigger and bolder steps. The food
movement, locally and globally, is rising, and it isn't going away. And
we will win, because the world we are fighting for is what the vast
majority of people want, and we are simply reminding people how to
believe that it is in fact possible to make that world.

Andrea Brower is a PhD candidate in the Department of
Sociology at the University of Auckland. She has been very active in
alternative food and global social justice movements, and spent several
years co-directing the non-profit Malama Kauai in Hawaii, where she is
originally from.

The True Food Prize Goes to the Haitians

The Iowa state capitol is vibrating with activity this week in
preparation for the World Food Prize Laureate Award Ceremony that is set
to take place on Thursday. The 2013 World Food Prize credits Monsanto
in the fight against hunger through sustainable agriculture—yet there is
a disconnect between the spirit of the prize and the U.S. agrochemical
giant’s actual practices. Organizers of the Food Sovereignty Prize aim
to bridge this gap by honoring grassroots social movements in their own
ceremony that will take place on Tuesday in New York City.Corporate Interventions in the Global SouthCompanies like Monsanto consistently expand into Global South
countries where more than a billion people each year contend with hunger
daily. Those most affected are rural farmers, with the majority being
women. Monsanto itself promotes chemically enhanced seeds that
perpetuate a cycle of dependency and have devastated parts of the world
most affected by hunger, environmental degradation, and extreme poverty.One of the most palpable cases is Haiti.The tiny Caribbean nation was once almost entirely self-sufficient,
built by generations of highly organized peasants working together in
community groups. In the ‘80s, that all changed—owing to neoliberal
agricultural policies that included stabilization to curb inflation,
structural adjustment, and export-led growth. The rice and pork
industries in the U.S., among others, saw Haiti as a means to quickly
expand their market share. But for Haitian farmers forced to learn the
hard way, the loss of their heirloom crops and Creole pigs meant a
downward spiral into dependence and hunger.In 2008, when the global food price crisis bore down on Haiti’s
staple crops, many rural Haitians curbed their hunger pangs with patties
made from mud, oil, and sugar. And the 2010 earthquake took the lives
and shelters of many rural farmers who had fled the countryside for
Port-au-Prince and surrounding urban areas searching for work.It was within the context of this catastrophe (couched in decades of
foreign agricultural intervention) that Monsanto parachuted into Haiti,
offering a gift of seeds in excess of $4 million.The catch was that the seeds were a synthetic variety, some so toxic
that they had been banned in the U.S. Many Haitians knew better that to
plant them. Haiti’s social movements took the matter seriously—to the
point of burning Monsanto seeds at a protest that brought four peasant
movements together, making headlines around the world.Grassroots Movements Reclaim Food SovereigntyHaiti’s Group of 4 (G4) came together as a coalition in 2007,
representing over a quarter million rural farming members of Heads
Together Small Farmers of Haiti (Tet Kole), the Peasant
Movement of Papaye, the National Congress of Peasant Movement of Papaye,
and the Regional Coordination of Organizations of the South East
Department. Its strategy is to provide a unified platform for peasants
to voice their concerns as well as make space for mass mobilization and
advocacy.The G4 recognized control of seeds as a priority from its inception.
Making sure that Monsanto’s alleged charity hybrids would go up in
flames reiterated their reach and recognition as a movement.Haiti’s G4 plays an essential role in Via Campesina, the
international peasant movement that has more than 200 million rural and
peasant members in 79 countries. Via Campesina is dedicated to seed
sovereignty as part of the overarching term “food sovereignty” that it
coined in 1996 to take the idea of food security the extra mile: instead
of just access to and availability of food, proponents of food
sovereignty stress that people have the right to define their own food
systems.In one of the vibrant peasant-to-peasant learning exchanges
encouraged by Via Campesina, G4 members invited South American activists
and agroecology experts to the Haitian countryside in 2007 to work
together with priorities of saving native seeds and supporting peasant
agriculture. The group adopted the name Dessalines Brigade after the 19th-century
Haitian independence leader Jean Jacques Dessalines. Immediately
following the 2010 earthquake, the G4/Dessalines Brigade redoubled their
efforts—providing communities with doctors, seasoned organizers,
teachers, and agronomists.Winning the Fight for Access to FoodThe G4 and its collaboration with the Dessalines Brigade caught the
eye of the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance, a diverse coalition of member
organizations working toward food justice in North America and
globally. Annually, the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance celebrates the
leaders on the frontlines that do the most to advance access to food in
their own communities through its Food Sovereignty Prize. The Haitian
G4/Dessalines Brigade partnership received top honors this year.“The Food Sovereignty Prize symbolizes the fight for safe and healthy
food for all peoples of the earth,” said Chavannes Jean-Baptiste who
sits on the executive committee of the G4. “It’s a fight that must be
waged both locally and globally, and requires deep solidarity among all
organizations fighting for food sovereignty.”Flavio Barbosa, a Brazilian organizer from the Dessalines Brigade,
elaborated: “Receiving this prize for the partnership between the G4 and
the Dessalines Brigade is an incentive for others to participate in
long exchanges such as the one we are experiencing in Haiti. And it
charges us with even greater responsibility to continue our defense of
peasant agriculture and agroecology as a way to produce sustainable,
healthy chemical-free foods accessible for all.”In addition to the G4/Dessalines Brigade’s top honor win, the U.S.
Food Sovereignty Alliance lauded the work of women and peasant groups in
Mali, India, and Basque Country.The Food Sovereignty Prize picks up where the World Food Prize has
fallen off—building confidence in the rural movements that are
positioned to transfer both power and food back into the hands of
deserving communities.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Salena Tramel is a journalist and international policy and development consultant.